BTW, in IPv4 residential routers: Netgear supports RIP, D-Link
supports RIP, Linksys supports RIP, Ubuntu supports RIP, Windows
Server 2008 as a LAN Router supports RIP, MacOSX supports RIP...
On Sep 3, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
> Routing in such an environmen
The CPE Router Draft is suggesting RIPng as the routing protocol
within a residential network.
On Sep 3, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
> Routing in such an environment calls for a routing protocol such as
> RIPv6 [RFC2080], IS-IS [RFC5308], or OSPF [RFC5340]. In a
Fred Baker wrote:
> Routing in such an environment calls for a routing protocol such as
> RIPv6 [RFC2080], IS-IS [RFC5308], or OSPF [RFC5340]. In addition,
> each CPE router will need to install a static default route upstream
> and advertise a default route in the chosen routing protocol.
Your
It was in reply to an earlier comment. This is the extent of its relevance.
> From: Fred Baker
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:12:55 -0400
> To: John Jason Brzozowski
> Cc: "Stark, Barbara" , "Azinger, Marla"
> ,
> ,
> , IETF IPv6
> Mailing
On Jul 30, 2009, at 5:39 PM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
[jjmb] the above is the most likely the near term typical use case.
[jjmb] the items below are more advanced. How far do we need to go
with the
below? Seems to me that we should enumerate some fundamental
mechanisms
that can be us
On Jul 30, 2009, at 5:20 PM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Will it be
straightforward enough for everyone else to setup?
For a person that has the problem described in 2.3, it's one click on
a Linksys router. I would imagine it is not so very different for
other companies.
---
On Jul 30, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
It enables route injection into a provider network absent the need
for a
dynamic routing protocol.
and what in this discussion is relevant to the provider network?
Everything I am talking about is inside the user's home.
---
> From: Fred Baker
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:04:23 -0400
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson
> Cc: ,
> , IETF IPv6
> Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
>
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Fr
hn_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Thu 7/30/2009 9:20 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson; IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson
&
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson
> Organization: People's Front Against WWW
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:21:50 -0400
> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Cc: ,
>
> Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>&g
> From: Fred Baker
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:53:30 -0400
> To: "Stark, Barbara"
> Cc: ,
> , IETF IPv6
> Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Stark, Barbara wrote:
>> Why d
Aaah, ok. So we are on the same page ;-)
On 7/30/09 7:55 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> Yiu,
>
>> IMHO, it is high bar for the operators to support dynamic routing
>> protocol
>> for residential customers. Today, each access router can easily
>> support
>> thousands of customers. Imagine the access
Corporation
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
m) 609-377-6594
=
> From: "Stark, Barbara"
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:03:34 -0400
> To: Fred Baker , "Azinger, Marla"
>
> Cc: ,
> , IETF IPv6
> Mailing Lis
Behalf Of Fred
Baker
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:06 AM
To: Yiu L. Lee
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org; IETF IPv6 Mailing
List
Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Yiu L
On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Yiu L. Lee wrote:
IMHO, it is high bar for the operators to support dynamic routing
protocol
for residential customers.
Several people have made that comment. In which draft is this proposed?
I
Hi Ole,
IMHO, it is high bar for the operators to support dynamic routing protocol
for residential customers. Today, each access router can easily support
thousands of customers. Imagine the access router needs to receive thousands
if not millions updates every few minutes, I am not sure the route
Yiu,
IMHO, it is high bar for the operators to support dynamic routing
protocol
for residential customers. Today, each access router can easily
support
thousands of customers. Imagine the access router needs to receive
thousands
if not millions updates every few minutes, I am not sure the r
Barbara,
I'm sorry if the following questions show my ignorance, but, here
goes...
Why does it need to be a dynamic routing protocol? Why not a simple
configuration protocol, like with RFC 4191 or a DHCPv6 option as
suggested in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-01?
Why
Mikael,
Um, what does a router do? Look at the example in the text and ask
yourself if you want an average user (my canonical "average user"
being my daughter, who wanted me to come to her house to install a
camera on her computer so she could use it on Skype - "did you try
plugging it in
On Jul 30, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
Um, what does a router do? Look at the example in the text and ask
yourself if you want an average user (my canonical "average user"
being my daughter, who wanted me to come to her house to install a
On Jul 30, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
And don't these routes need to get propagated down to the hosts,
because
hosts may individually have multiple interfaces (e.g., smartphone
with
Wi-Fi and 3G)?
That gets into a much larger discussion. Willing to go there, but
that's beyond
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
Um, what does a router do? Look at the example in the text and ask
yourself if you want an average user (my canonical "average user" being
my daughter, who wanted me to come to her house to install a camera on
her computer so she could use it on Skype - "
Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Fred Baker
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:05 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-donley-ipv6-
cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org; IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subjec
etf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Fred Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:05 AM
> To: Azinger, Marla
> Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-donley-ipv6-
> cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org; IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6
Inline
> From: "Azinger, Marla"
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:39:16 -0400
> To: Fred Baker , IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Cc: ,
>
> Subject: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
>
> 1. Im really not sure an IETF document is really needed here. What you wrot
Only opinion I have is, it seems to makes sense to have the algorithm text
worked in 6man.
The network models standard delegation (non-hierarchical) versus advanced
delegation (hierarchical) would still reside in a CPE requirements draft
right in v6ops?
John
==
: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> Routing in such an environment calls for a routing protocol. Each CPE
> must run either RIPv6 [RFC2080], IS-IS [RFC5308], or OSPF [RFC5340] on
> a default route and to the homes interal u
On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
Routing in such an environment calls for a routing protocol. Each
CPE must run either RIPv6 [RFC2080], IS-IS [RFC5308], or OSPF
[RFC5340] on a default route and to the homes interal upstream a
static default route. The issues raised in [R
iginal Message-
> From: Azinger, Marla
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:25 AM
> To: 'Fred Baker'
> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List;
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org
> ; draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on I
:25 AM
To: 'Fred Baker'
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org
; draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Im thinking one step further than the double routers. For example
if the
on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> 2. I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3 Am I
> interpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams do OSPF
> over VPN with residential customers?
within their homes?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
2. I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3 Am I
interpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams do
OSPF over VPN with residential customers?
within their homes?
No, I am suggesting that in a home that has
Hi Fred-
Here are my thoughts after the first read:
1. Im really not sure an IETF document is really needed here. What you wrote
is an example of justification in a manner. I agree some people probably need
some papers to read that will get their minds thinking in an IPv6 sub
delegation man
Fred,
Organizationally, I agree with your asersion that referencing another document
to describe the sub-delegation behavior gives some wiggle room.
-KE
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 6:09 AM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: draft-
34 matches
Mail list logo
